Meeting of the ARIN Advisory Council - 19 June 2008 [Archived]

Teleconference

Attendees:

• Leo Bicknell (LB), Chair
• Dan Alexander (DA)
• Paul Andersen (PA)
• Cathy Aronson (CA)
• Bill Darte (BD)
• Owen DeLong (OD)
• Stacy Hughes (SH)
• Scott Leibrand (SL)
• Matt Pounsett (MP)
• Robert Seastrom (RS)
• Heather Schiller (HS)
• Suzanne Woolf (SW)

ARIN Staff:

• Thérèse Colosi, Scribe
• Nate Davis, COO
• Susan Hamlin, Director Member Services
• Richard Jimmerson, CIO
• Leslie Nobile, Director, Registration Services
• Ray Plzak (RP), President & CEO

ARIN Counsel:

• Stephen M. Ryan

Apologies:

• Marla Azinger, Lea Roberts

Absent:

• Alec Peterson

1. Welcome

The Chair called the meeting to order at 4:06 p.m. EDT. The presence of quorum was noted.

2. Agenda Bashing

The Chair called for comments. PA requested item 16 A be discussed before the last call proposals on the agenda, because they were discussed during the Caribbean Sector meeting and felt discussion could be relevant to the last call proposals. The Chair moved item 16. A as requested, to before Item 8

3. General Counsel Update

Counsel provided an attorney/client-privileged update to the AC on ARIN’s legal matters..

4. Approval of the Minutes

SL moved:

“ARIN Advisory Council approves the Minutes of May 15, 2008, as written.”

This was seconded by OD. The Chair called for any comments.

The motion carried with no objections.

5. Proposal 2007-21: for Legacy Holders with RSA and Efficient Use

The ARIN Board will hold a meeting on Friday, June 20, 2008 to consider this proposal for ratification.

6. Policy Proposal 2007-23: End Policy for IANA IPv4 Allocations to RIRs

The ARIN Board will hold a meeting on Friday, June 20, 2008 to consider this proposal for ratification.

7. Policy Proposal 2002008-1: SWIP Support for Smaller than /29 Assignments

The ARIN Board will hold a meeting on Friday, June 20, 2008 to consider this proposal for ratification.

As requested, Item 16. A. was discussed at this point in the agenda.

16. AC Trip Reports

A. ARIN Caribbean Sector Meeting, Kingston, Jamaica. The Chair, SW, BD and OD attended this meeting. OD felt it went well and there was good input from the community. SW stated participation was different in that a number of government representatives from regulatory agencies were there. She stated they participated and offered discussion and guidance about policy formulations that would make it easier for them to help us – which is not seen in meetings in the USA or Europe that often. BD felt participation was outstanding. The Chair agreed and stated the AC is to consider input from the Caribbean meetings regarding policy proposals. He queried how to weight the Sector meeting, the ARIN meeting and PPML inputs; and, would like to have this discussed in the future.

SL stated that generally input from ARIN meeting is both discussion and votes and asked if there were votes taken. BD stated yes, but they were not published in the Sector meeting report. The Chair stated the results will be provided at the ARIN meeting in Los Angeles this Fall. He then asked if the results would be shown in the slide presentation to which the President replied yes.

OD felt that the Sector votes should not be in the slide presentation because it would put the votes at a disadvantage. He stated he would like to see them more on par with the weighting of the ARIN meeting votes. He felt the Sector meeting votes should not be presented in advance of the vote at the ARIN meeting. To keep them fair and equitable, OD suggested releasing the Sector votes after the ARIN votes during the ARIN meeting.

In the interest of time, the Chair stated this topic would be further discussed on the AC’s mailing list. All agreed.

Item 16 B and C will be resumed in the normal order on this agenda.

8. Policy Proposal 2007-17: Legacy Outreach and Partial Reclamation

The Chair called for any background information before making a motion. CA stated this proposal went through last call and she did not see any futher discussion on PPML.

CA moved:

“The ARIN Advisory Council, based on comments from stakeholders expressed either at the ARIN XXI Public Policy meeting or on the ARIN public policy mailing list, having reviewed the comments collected during the Last Call period, and noting that the Internet Resource Policy Evaluation Process has been followed, recommends that the ARIN Board of Trustees adopt Policy Proposal 2007-17: Legacy Outreach and Partial Reclamation.”

This was seconded by MP. The Chair called for discussion. No comments.

The motion carried unanimously via roll call.

9. Policy Proposal 2007-14: Resource Review Process (formerly, “Reclamation of Number Resources”)

The Chair stated he had not seen any discussion on the PPML. OD, as author, stated the revisions will be available in time for the ARIN meeting in the Fall.

10. Policy Proposal 2008-2: IPv4 Transfer Policy Proposal

The Chair called for an update on this proposal. SL stated that much of the discussion on PPML was a rehashing of the same arguments as in the past. He suggested creating a straw man, taking text and highlighted sections, and producing alternative straw men from it and then fostering discussions on the preferred options.

SW stated that there is no way currently to be able to tell when discussion on this proposal is winding down or finished. She felt this is as much consensus as there is going to be. She stated it is moving into a situation where it is not clear that there is incentive to terminate the discussion. BD agreed.

The Chair suggested that in terms of guiding this issue forward, there could be 3 options: 1) Represent the policy as-is at the ARIN meeting in the Fall, 2) generate a revised version for the ARIN meeting in the Fall; or 3) abandon prior to the ARIN meeting in the Fall.

Counsel provided attorney-client advice and urged a speedy policy resolution through the either the adoption of 2008-2, a revised 2008-2, or rejection of, since enforcement of the status quo transfer policy in late 2008 and early 2009 could result in significant litigation costs and risks to ARIN.

SW stated she noticed that the only thing in support for the proposal, besides what had been done, were statements that said putting restrictions into the policy makes no sense, make it simple and then stand back. OD agreed with not changing the scope of transfers.

It was the sense of the AC that a revision to the policy proposal was in order. The Chair stated there were two and a half months left to submit a proposal to meet the 30 day out deadline for the Fall ARIN meeting. He asked SL and SH to generate discussion on PPML regarding this direction. They agreed.

11. Policy Proposal 2008-3: Community Networks IPv6 Allocation

The Chair called for an update on this proposal. SH stated that the author has been showing this policy at various venues, and plans to rewrite it in time for the ARIN meeting in the Fall. She stated she did not know what direction the author will take in the revisions. BD stated he represented this policy proposal at the Sector meeting, and it had a lot of support in the Caribbean. They felt it would be very useful for them.

BD asked the members in the Caribbean to forward their comments to the PPML because it would be useful for them to do so, but had not seen any comments to date. The Chair tasked the shepherds of this proposal to encourage the author to post to the PPML and draw the members from the Caribbean to comment on the list. SH and BD agreed.

OD asked if the Caribbean members joined the PPML. The President stated he would have staff look at subscription statistics for the answer.

12. Policy Proposal 2008-4: Minimum Allocation in the Caribbean Region

The Chair called for an update on this proposal. HS stated she would be sending the authors an email to ask if they want to address the feedback received from the Sector meeting. PA, as author, stated he would be making revisions based on modifications from Caribbean Sector meeting.

SW stated she would also work with the authors to assist in the revisions since she attended the Sector meeting. BD also attended and volunteered to assist. SW stated she would send notice to the AC’s list.

13. Proposal entitled “Dedicated IPv4 block to Facilitate IPv6 Deployment”

The Chair called for any background information before making a motion. MP stated discussion on PPML evolved into whether or not filtering was needed on block sizes. He felt that this lead to missing the point of the proposal. He stated after the motion is made, he would attempt to stir discussion on the PPML once again.

MP moved:

“The ARIN Advisory Council, having reviewed the proposal entitled ‘Dedicated IPv4 block to Facilitate IPv6 Deployment’, accepts it as written as a formal policy proposal; and, requests the President assign it a formal policy proposal number.”

This was seconded by OD. The Chair called for discussion. DA and BD stated they were in support of this proposal and motion.

The motion carried with 10 in favor, and 2 against (SH, LB) via roll call.

MP asked why SH and LB were against the proposal. SH stated that she did not see the merit of this proposal. The Chair agreed stating he felt it unnecessary to facilitate v6 deployment. He felt it a small corner case better solved by using address space within the IANA and ISPs. He then suggested moving this discussion to the AC’s list and/or the PPML.

14. Proposal entitled “Extend Experimental Renewal Timeframe”

The Chair called for any background information before making a motion. HS stated she had fostered discussion on the PPML to see who would be impacted. She stated that only Randy Bush responded to the fact that it’s really just paperwork. PA felt the author would be fostering more discussion because he knew the author felt people may have more to say.

SW stated that during the NANOG meeting recently in NY, a member stated it would be a hardship for them. SW explained that she was a former shepherd on this proposal and that the one year time frame was chosen to balance between conducting the experiment and having something to report in re-justification; and, not turning prefixes loose for a long enough timeframe to be treated as just another way to get another prefix. She stated she would have a problem with saying it may be overly constrained, and that another year is not going to really increase the chances of making off with a prefix with no experimentation. She felt there was no reason to increase the timeframe.

The Chair added that the author is also working on a project entitled LISP and had the need for test boxes, asking the Chair if there was a way to obtain a block for the experiment. The Chair directed the author to ARIN. The author emailed the Chair stating that the 6 bone network had to be torn down at the end of the experiment, but if the list network worked, it could be subsumed into the final network and not torn down. It would morph into production, thus having justification for its own block. The author complained that the 500 dollar fee was a problem, and it was difficult to get his company to approve the payment. Subsequently, at the NANOG meeting the author complained about the 1 year timeframe.

HS asked if there was a way to differentiate between an initial experimental allocation and renewal allocation since there is nothing in the policy that defines this.

LN explained that there is indeed documentation that re-justification requires written justification letting ARIN know what stage of experimentation they are in, their future plans, and how long they plan on using the block.

SW stated that she needed to leave the call at this time (5:01 p.m. EDT). Hearing no further background information, the Chair called for a motion.

PA moved:

“The ARIN Advisory Council, having reviewed the proposal entitled ‘Extend Experimental Renewal Timeframe’, accepts it as written as a formal policy proposal; and, requests the President assign it a formal policy proposal number.”

This was seconded by BD. The Chair called for comments. OD felt there was no need for this proposal and that no one had conveyed a hardship to posting for a year. He felt the issue regarding the 500 dollar fee will not be solved with this proposal; and, felt the proposal did not address the real problem experienced by the community in any meaningful way. OD expressed support to abandon the proposal.

PA stated he was in support of the motion to accept the proposal, and that the PPML can make a case out of the issues and, depending on the outcome at the ARIN meeting in the Fall, he would be in favor of abandonment.

SL suggested postponing the proposal because MA, who was not on this teleconference, had information that the AC did not yet review. He suggested holding off and making a motion after seeing MA’s information.

The Chair stated that in actuality there was no support on PPML.

MP also felt there was nothing in the proposal that was necessary. He felt that until there is justification, it should not be put into the process. He felt there would be a much better use of time spent discussing converting experimental allocations to full allocations.

PA stated he would be willing to amend his motion and moved:

“The ARIN Advisory Council, having reviewed the proposal entitled ‘Extend Experimental Timeframe’, postpones the decision on the proposal in order for the shepherds to work with the author.”

The Chair called for any objections. There were no objections.

The motion to amend carried unanimously with no objections.

OD moved to amend to abandon the proposal.

This was seconded by CA. The Chair called for discussion. MP stated he agreed with OD.

The motion to amend to abandon, instead of to postpone, carried with 6 in favor, 5 against (PA, LB, BD, SL, SH,) via roll call.

It was realized however, that a reason needed to be given in order for the motion to be complete.

OD revised his motion and moved:

“The ARIN Advisory Council, having reviewed the proposal entitled ‘Extend Experimental Timeframe’, does not accept it. The reason we do not accept it is because this does not address a direct need of the community. The AC requests that the President advise the author of the availability of the petition process.”

The resulting motion carried with 9 in favor, and 2 against (MP, SH) via roll call.

The Chair stated the author needed to be notified of the AC’s decision. He tasked PA and HS to draft a response and send it to the President. PA and HS agreed.

It was noted that no one had made a second on OD’s motion to abandon with reason.

BD seconded the addition of the reasoning in the motion. The revised motion to abandon carried unanimously with no objections.

15. Proposal entitled “Equitable Distribution of IPv4 Resources Before IPv4 Run-Out”

The Chair called for any background information on this proposal before making a motion. SL stated there was consensus of opinion on the PPML that this was not a good idea. He explained the idea was good but the proposal does not fulfill the need.

OD moved:

“The ARIN Advisory Council, having reviewed the proposal entitled ‘Equitable Distribution of IPv4 Resources Before IPv4 Run-Out’, does not accept it. The reason we do not accept it is because there is no community support for it. The AC requests that the President advise the author of the availability of the petition process.”

This was seconded by SL. The Chair called for discussion. There were no comments.

The motion carried unanimously via roll call.

16. AC Trip Reports

A. ARIN Caribbean Sector Meeting, Kingston, Jamaica. Discussed above after Item 7.

B. LACNIC, Salvador, Brazil. MP apologized for not providing a written report to the AC’s list and stated he would provide it soon. He noted how different it was to attend a meeting that was translated from another language. He stated that the IPv6 Initial Allocation policy did have discussion and that other proposals were overviewed. He noted that the policy proposal to change the global policy (that is the same as the ARIN N equals 1 policy) was adopted. This adoption syncs LACNICs policy to match the other RIR’s global policy on this issue.

C. AFRINIC, Rabat, Morocco. OD sent the AC a brief overview of this meeting via the AC’s email list on June 10, 2008. OD stated if there were any questions he would be happy to discuss. No questions.

17. Any Other Business

The Chair called for any other business. There were no comments. The Chair stated it was appropriate to, and encouraged the AC in general - or the shepherds of proposals - to discuss motions before an AC meeting on the AC’s list, or privately, in order to facilitate the best use of time during their meetings.

18. Adjournment

The Chair entertained a motion to adjourn at 5:33 p.m. EDT. CA moved to adjourn and this was seconded by SH. The motion carried unanimously.